ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2003
41 South Main Street
Members Present: Paul Parker, Charlie King, Margaret Russell, Russell Stoakes
Staff Present: Paul Charron and Fran Osborne
Public Present: Benji Fowler, Rocky Newton, Judy Emerson, Elizabeth Fischer, Robert McCabe,
Chris Smith
· Chairman Parker brought meeting to order at 7:00 p. m. Minutes of 11/6/03 were reviewed. Charlie King made a motion to accept the minutes of 11/6/03 as written, Margaret 2nd, discussion, all in favor, motion carried.
· Under new business, Chairman Parker discussed possible zoning changes.
· Discussion on January & having a meeting as 1st Thursday is New Year’s Day. Charlie King made a motion to change the ZBA meeting for January to January 8, 2004 if there is scheduled agenda, Russell Stoakes 2nd, motion carried.
Public Hearing 7:30 p. m.
· Application for Special Exception by Elizabeth Fischer for expansion of a nonconforming use as provided in Section 1.04 (B) (1) for 43 S. Main Street (Tax Map U6, Lot 104). Chairman Parker introduced the board to the public and informed Mrs. Fischer one board member is absent. She can go with the four members present or choose to go with five at another meeting. Elizabeth said she would go forward. She has owned this property since 1985. She did major rehab on the property and feels it is a good property. There are three 2-bedroom apartments & one 1-bedroom. The back apartment has very tight quarters
and is a problem to rent because of size of the apartment. I come to seek relief and was told by CEO Paul Charron I might be able to do this. According to the spirit and intent of the ordinance, the building is the same as others in that area. It is a nonconforming lot. I have provided a rendering of the addition to show the board. My lot is #104.
Abutter Benji Fowler who lives at 1 Water St. (Lot 102) asked about the addition as he thought it would go up, not out. Mrs. Fischer explained the addition will go out, not up. Mr. Fowler feels this will aggravate his dogs in the yard and may block his view.
Mrs. Fischer – there are no setbacks according to your zoning. It is my intent to have this a handicap unit if necessary. I didn’t try to cover the lot. This is in the Village Center District and as far as I could see it would fit into the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Charlie King – what makes this nonconforming? It is a 7,700 s. f. lot (minimum is 10,000 s. f.). The addition will be about 15’ away from the lot line, but the VC has no setback. I’m expanding just the unit, not adding another additional unit. Discussion.
Russell Stoakes – questioned allowing a buffer between Mrs. Fischer’s building and Benji Fowler. Mrs. Fischer said the fence has been there since 1985. Discussion on buffer. There is more than 10’ between residences according to CEO Paul Charron. It does not take up more driveway space. There is adequate parking for 8 vehicles (2 each of 4 units).
Paul Parker – are you looking for an elderly person? Mrs. Fischer commented she cannot discriminate. She looks for renters with good references. She screens applicants (criminal background check, credit check, etc.). There is drainage on site.
Charlie King – would you be favorable to us imposing leaving 15’ to property line? This is the customary setback in other zones in town.
Zoning Boar of Adjustment Meeting December 4, 2003 (continued) Page 2
Mrs. Fischer – I will see if I can meet that. I would be in agreement to meet the 15’ if I can, or I may have to change the s. f. configuration. She was asked about pets. The law states you cannot discriminate against pets. If it is medically necessary for someone to have pets, we allow a companion or service animal. I do have a “no pet policy” as a general rule.
CEO Paul Charron – questioned setback. No less than 12’ might help to make it more acceptable as a compromise to the board. Chairman Parker closed the public portion of meeting.
Benji Fowler – the addition will be a bedroom and I have 2 dogs & work out back during the day. I’ve had complaints about my dogs. I thought she was going up instead of going back.
Paul Charron – she had good reason for going back one story. Maybe shrubs would help buffer the noise issue. Discussion on shrubs vs. fencing. ZBA can require this.
Mrs. Fischer – the area does not get adequate light & she cannot even grow good grass there. I would put up a visual fence. Allow me to put up something that is sustainable.
Russell Stoakes board member – use is the same. The state does try to tell us to try & not expand a nonconforming use. Would it be agreeable to view the site. Paul Parker said it is right next to this building. Charlie King – there are already 4 units here. It’s an expansion of the nonconforming use. The s. f. requirement is 5,000 s. f. per unit. Discussion on 4 units on such a small lot. How can you prove hardship?
Paul Parker – stressed the 4 units already exist. They are making the fourth unit more livable. Parking is provided. Discussion on making the building more nonconforming by doing the addition. Discussion on coming closer to the lot line.
Charlie King – by allowing expansion we are not being consistent with our Zoning Ordinance.
Margaret Russell – discussion on building expansion being closer to abutter and making the unit space more livable.
Charlie King – discussion on NH Land Use page 251 (RSA 674:19) regarding change of use – does not apply in this case – change of use is not the issue.
Paul Parker – a fence would help on sound deadening.
Charlie King – made a motion to deny the application for Special Exception by Elizabeth Fischer per Section 1.04 B & (1) (a) – expansion is closer to the lot line, Section 1.04 B (1) (d) expansion does adversely affect an abutter & will worsen the current abutter issues, Margaret 2nd, Chairman Parker does not agree with (d) portion, Charlie King, Russell Stoakes & Margaret Russell in favor, motion passes.
Elizabeth Fischer asked about point of order. CEO Paul Charron explained she could appeal the decision. The structure is not a nonconforming structure per Section 1.04 (A). Discussion. This excludes duplexes & multifamily. I thought the one she applied for was correct, so basically she was not supposed to get a building permit, there is not relief according to our Zoning Ordinance. She can appeal – it is a nonconforming use. Section 1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance was referred to.
Chairman Parker – file for appeal and we will research with town counsel on legalities.
Charlie King – we are in principle a board of variance. Applicant has to prove hardship or whatever to comply with what the town put into effect. The applicant must prove the hardship.
Mrs. Fischer – before I go forward, I would like clarification.
CEO Paul Charron – it is a nonconforming lot. Rule on absolving her of additional fees to reapply.
Mrs. Fischer – I’d like the town to call me back with how to proceed. Appeal time is 30 days. Mrs. Fischer asked Benji Fowler if she could measure the distance from his building to lot line of her property.
· Application for Variance by Rocky Newton & Judy Emerson per Section 2.01 (B) to subdivide a 14.6 acre parcel into 2 lots with only 400’ frontage on Ridge Rd. (Tax Map R59, Lot 31). Rocky Newton & Judy Emerson will present their case. Chairman explained there were only 4 board members present and they had right to 5 members. Rocky Newton asked to continue. His parents own the 14.6 acres. Lot only has 400’ of frontage. He has a right-of-way existing and a building permit for a new building which he has started. We don’t have the required 500’ frontage for 2 lots to subdivide. Originally the lot requirement
was 200’ and in 1992 that changed to 250’. Rocky explained the plan presented drawn by Randy Tetreault
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting December 4, 2003 (continued) Page 3
of Norway Plains. Justification for variance was read.
Christopher Smith – abutter. I have no objection to his lot. I’m downhill to it with no objection to the variance being allowed.
Charlie King – discussion of right-of-way and frontage requirement. If it had 50’ right-of-way it could be allowed. He’s here because it hasn’t been subdivided (Section 1.04B). Is the 2nd home constructed? It has been started. In Subdivision Regulations, Section 3.01 – a 2nd home is allowed. Right now it has twice the area for 2 homes to subdivide.
Paul Parker – this is not a subdivision of record. CEO Paul Charron – that’s correct. Discussion on drawing by Randy Tetreault and lots originally being cut out with 200’ frontage.
Rocky Newton – I’m not crowding anybody, the Boston & Maine railroad owns behind me.
CEO Paul Charron – he’s asking only for a variance to road frontage requirement. It’s pretty straight forward.
Chairman Parker read Section 2.01 The 5 criteria for a variance were read. Discussion.
(1) Charlie – no diminution of property values.
(2) Charlie – originally this was zoned 200’, based on what was usual & customary at the time. Discussion. Usually frontage requirements go down, not up.
Margaret – this was increased to protect the rural area.
Russ – I don’t think it harms the public interest.
Margaret & Paul – discussion on allowing no further subdivision.
(3) Margaret – there’s no special hardship here.
Russ Stoakes – the hardship is he can’t get financing on the new house being built.
Margaret – we can’t grant a variance on the financial issue. Discussion.
Charlie King – The AR (Agricultural Residential) zone allows 2 residences on this amount of acreage.
Margaret – discussion with CEO on twice the required area & 30’ between houses, 50’ on street, etc.
Charlie King – I feel it is a hardship on the applicant. The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow him to use his property because of holes in the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) Discussion.
(5) Russell Stoakes – this does not create overcrowding. Ask applicant to restrict any further subdivision of both lots. He referred to Section 4.22 on frontage.
Margaret Russell made a motion to accept the motion to allow the variance of 1 lot with 100’ and the other lot with 300’ frontage with the condition that no further subdivision of the lot be allowed. Only 2 lots will be allowed to be subdivided as shown on the plan presented to the board, Charlie 2nd, vote is 2 for (Charlie King & Russell Stoakes), 2 against (Paul Parker & Margaret Russell), motion denied.
Applicant was told he can appeal and ask for a full board to hear the appeal only.
· With no further business to discuss, Margaret Russell made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 p. m., Russell Stoakes 2nd, motion carried.
APPROVED
___________________________________ ________________________________
Paul Parker, Chairman Date
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town of Farmington
| 
